Postage Stamp Chat Board & Stamp Bulletin Board Forum
 

I'll start off with a few. Should I soak them, or not?

Erik,

There won't be any problem with soaking these stamps. Whether or not you would want to soak some of them off their paper backing is another matter altogether.

Glen recommends hot water baths - really hot - with a few drops of Palmolive green washing up liquid. Rinse the stamps after the bath, and then pop them into a "Desert Magic" drying book, or between a couple of sheets of white blotting paper, place some heavy books on the top and leave them for a few days.

I've know one collector who boils tatty-looking stamps in a saucepan for ten minutes or so - yes, boils - and it was amazing how fresh they came out and with no visible harm. Haven't been able to bring myself to boil mine, but I do use very hot water.

All the Australian pre decimal stamps are safe to soak, with the exception of the chalk-surfaced issues, and maybe the 1965 Christmas, although even these don't seem to mind a gentle, brief dip in warm to tepid water just to get any gunk and remainders of the back. Glen will excommunicate me for saying so. Be careful with Oz pre decimal printed with helecon ink or on helecon paper.

Clive

Thanks, Clive.

I'm just waiting for the collectors of stamps on piece to see this thread

Value soaked off and dried flat a dollar or two retail on a good day, and a bit of work your end.

ACSC value of them as "used on cover or parcel fragment" is around 20 times that.

Seems like a no brainer to me.

Strongly agree. NO!
There may be a few exceptions, but the only one I can think of is if there is 'foxing'
or rust' developing on the paper, yet to affect the stamp's.

_________________
mobbor

Would these really count as 'parcel fragments' though?

These sure would.

And that dated KEW - VIC cds on the 1/7d is a 2c anonoynous stamp when soaked off.

AHH!, I already soaked some of these.

Here's one for you.

A nice 6d blue "broken leg" positional block of 4.

Quite fresh , totally MNH but with some foxing on top of front and a small amount ( few spots) on back.

Should i soak it? , would you soak it?

Hi pandadog 28
In your case NO!. But we were talking about soaking stamps off paper, not MUH.
However, in my opinion you need to do something, because it will spread.

_________________
mobbor

I thought it was a general 'soak it ' thread, i dont want to have to start another one.

pandadog 28
All right you got me! but what are you going to do about the block?

_________________
mobbor

Well seeking Jugoslavia asked a question a few hours before he now tells us he has foolishly soaked the bloody things anyway, let's not wonder why he wasted our time asking, and move onto to REAL questions such as yours!

One thing I would consider is a small snip off top edge where the worst of the foxing is -- i.e. along this line .. getting rid of that will slow the spread.

I owned your block at one point and had seriously thought of doing it then, but it was far less foxed then.

Mobbor,

I dont know. They are not easy to find, i have seen a few singles but the blocks are rare.

Some people say i should soak it though.

Fair dinkum, how long ago.

I was tempted to buy this PANE of 60 at Gray which had no bidders at the sale (but sold afterward for $A4,500.)

I'd have easily got $4,500 (indeed a lot more) for the 56 other units as basic stamps (all 60 were MUH), and the error block would be free in my hands then.

I'd have likewise trimmed that, as it was even worse spotted than yours!

Yours of course HAS been trimmed at right anyway, as you can see!

You guys crack me up -- you've been reading ebay for too long, and the BS wording there starts to become real.

This is not "quite fresh" -- it is EXTENSIVELY FOXED ON ALL STAMPS AND MARGINS!

Fairy nuff.

I meant although there was foxing there is no toning, does that make any sense?

Does not make it "quite fresh"!

And it seems clear the gum is getting that overall age tone to it as well.

I've just given it your suggested haircut and i feel better already.

O.K. now we're getting serious. It's a very valuable block & I don't know the answer.
I've had the the privilege of listening to 2 foremost KG V specialists talking about how
about they dealt with the problem with Chloramine T. It is dangerous stuff which I
haven't tried *& it's no longer easy to get hold of. If you use it evidence will remain
but in my opinion it is restoration & quite legitimate. There are threads on this site
about dealing with the problem. Good luck!

_________________
mobbor

Yes the heaviest foxing was there at very top. Foxing is simply a living fungus/mould eating the paper. Remove the worst bit, and you save the rest to some extent

You are a carpenter IIRC .. it is like a quite of wood with rot .. cut that out and there is a chance it will not spread.

And do not listen at all to the info on Chloramine T.

On these very delicate milky blue stamps the colour will all but disappear, making it a worthless piece of near white paper, with no gum. As every clever 'genius' messing with foxed 3rd wmk £1 brown and blue Kangaroos (same blue ink as the 6d) has discovered to their horror over the decades. These are NOT 1d reds.

Over 30 years in dealing I have seen 10 times more stamps TOTALLY ruined by amateur armchair chemists, than they have rescued.

As far as I can see there is no 'foxing' on the inked part of the stamp and I would
not suggest you use it there in any circumstances. Maybe the 'wood' analogy is relevant & maybe it is'nt
but you can't cut all of it out without ruining the stamps which may be ruined
anyway.

_________________
mobbor

Martin .. back to your issue and question .. I had exactly the same decision to make when I sold this Die 2A unique mongoram block to Arthur Gray in 1999 for $3,500. Was it wise to wash off the gum - or not?

He left the gum as it was, and it sold for $22,000, 8 years later with the same gum foxing. Indeed it was worse by then of course.

Actually the back looks pretty terrible - this photo does not show the extent of the foxing.

Thanks Glen,

Arthurs block certainly fits into the almost unique ( if not unique) category but i certainly get the picture.

NO chemicals are ever going to get near my stamps , that's for sure.

I love hearing about the history and your life as a stamp dealer, it must be nice to see the same stuff again even with inflation.

I guess you were happy with the $3500 you got for Arthur's block back then, its all relative in some way i guess.

Here was the original ad PDF wording from 1999.

Well $3,500 was probably far too cheap back then, (although trust me I made a good profit!) as even a monogram strip 3 with no Die 2A was worth that, ($4000 in fact for HINGED)

Due to the toning even a decade back, I priced it pretty low to make certain it sold fast.

Like your 6d "Broken Leg" block, this was totally MUH, so I decided MUH and a bit toned, was better than no gum and slightly less toned.

I'd just bought it off another really well known dealer who found it in the bottom of a box of unique and rare early stuff from the country, and he had no idea the Die 2A was even there on that block, so it cost me nothing extra, so I was more or less passing on his appalling lack of knowledge to whomever bought it from me!

Even then I realised it was unique in private hands - as you can see from the wording. Who says there are no bargains buying from dealer ads.

Absolute classic. Thanks

Going back to the soaking off paper. Common stamps on-piece with clear LEGIBLE postmarks should never be soaked. Common stamps off-paper are not 10 a penny they are 100s a penny. Stamps on piece with anything other than the most common type of postmark from the most common,largest cities have a small value to a postmark collector, especially if offered as an accumulation with some affinity - the same country,region or town for example.

I would also add however that with older stamps the paper generally deteriorates faster than the stamp, and when the paper reaches a certain level of decay it brings a risk of stamp damage following. Even where there is no obvious paper damage you should make a decision as to the probable future events, and it may be prudent with a higher value stamp to soak and be damned.

As in all these cases you need to look at best and worst case scenarios - and the long term preservation of the value of the item. Sometimes the long- term value of an off paper lower value stamp exceeds that of a destroyed on paper stamp( worth more in the short term ). The length of time you intend to keep the item will have an impact on your choice of action.

I am not sure that my explanation is completely lucid but I hope you catch my drift.

Malcolm

How about these?


I actually looked again, and I did not soak those stamps that I thought I soaked earlier.

Just leave them,put them in a box, and have a look perhaps 50 years down the track.
they may be worth something then,on or off paper.but right now not worth getting concerned about.

_________________
Nunawading Stamp Fair
Last Sunday of Every Month - Jaycees Hall Silver Grove - Nunawading.

OK shoot me down in flames, call me an ignorant buffoon but....

Living fungus/mould = moisture and warmth. First remove from damp warm environment = fungus cannot survive, ends life cycle and dies = stamps dont get worse! Their living on the moist gum?

Would exposure to a source of strong UV for a short time only to the back of the stamps kill the fungus? If so end of problem.

Isnt there an insecticide powder - even tinea powder (Daktarin?) you use on your feet - strong enough to kill fungus and spores? If so make sure stamps are dry and lightly dust for overnight then brush off in the morning?

Foxing appears very light so far and only on the back - so when you stop the life cycle of fungus no more damage!

I dont think a short burst of strong UV or the powder solution would damage the stamps any worse than letting the foxing continue on unchecked!

Once cured dont put them back where they were! Where ever they touched also has spores waiting to come to life! Mount them onto a buffered (acid negative) archival board and put them back in the cool, dry, dark.

OK now fire away - at least im not suggesting bleach!!

_________________
Greg - Looking for Goulburn Australia Cancels and Grangemouth Scotland Cancels and Covers
Member of the S.T.A.M.P Club for Slightly Twisted And Mad Philatelists - Motto: "Bring back the lick!"

Yes, but there will still be a stain.

Well if there is NO Gum, as a test, try a "q tip" and some "sards wonder soap" on your new offcut pieces and see what happens!

If there is gum then you will always have the stain and your option is just to preserve the block from getting any worse.

_________________
Greg - Looking for Goulburn Australia Cancels and Grangemouth Scotland Cancels and Covers
Member of the S.T.A.M.P Club for Slightly Twisted And Mad Philatelists - Motto: "Bring back the lick!"

Erik

The York "small packet rubber cds" postmark is common and a bit untidy, but you could keep that until you get a clearer one (stamp is very common).The large piece would be interesting if the top bit of the postmark ( the crucial bit showing the actual village or office ) were legible- but as only the area or region bit can be identified I am afraid it is pretty insignificant and you may as well soak. The christmas stamp also has insufficient information.

A complete postmark while desirable, is not essential, provided that the following information can be determined either by observation or deduction -

1. The correct lettering/spelling/format of the place name.

2. Any ancilliary lettering such as machine number, time code or postcode.

3. Any slogan/ink jet attached

4. The diameter of a cds and thickness, length of any bars or arcs etc.

it follows that any distortion caused by snagging in the franking machine, or "bounce" of a handstamp ( as in your York example ) can cause ID problems - which is why that particular handstamp should be replaced. There may be 2 similar stamps with slightly different diameters - and that would not be obvious from your example. If it were mine I would not go out of my way to replace it bearing in mind how common it is - a replacement will turn up in kiloware eventually

Malcolm

I'd appreciate any input about what can be done for this stamp.



In the past I've destroyed my share of stamps, especially shades, but usually on cheaper items. This is a pretty scarce stamp and I'd like to at least arrest any ongoing damage without stuffing it up.

Cheers,
Mark.

_________________
Reddog aka Mark Rowen.
I have a red dog, his name is Buddy.

Mark ... blue often fades very fast if fiddled with, so might be wise not to touch it!

Hi Glen.

Is this the same problem as the roo block above (fungus) or something else? By the way the reverse doesn't show any real shine but is more matt in appearance, there doesn't appear to be a lot of gum there.

I'm inclined to maintain a watching brief with the above scan effectively a time stamped image. Maybe scan in 6-12 months for comparison.

Thanks for the input.

Cheers,
Mark.

_________________
Reddog aka Mark Rowen.
I have a red dog, his name is Buddy.

Gum age toning .. it WILL get worse each year .. trust me. The colour fades in that region too, even if you leave it alone.

I was going to suggest that rather than foxing or fungus its toning due to long term storage in the wrong album - looks like its was kept in one of the older collectors album on cheap paper which has now stained the stamp. Or an old glassine bag thats gone off.

I see 2 tones; one - the brown coming from the edge - light damage and touching the old paper?
The other appears to have a reddish tinge from the top to just below the SA perfins. I cant tell if it had a hinge remain, but if the hinge kept the top portion of the stamp just a little further away from the page and the bottom was then in contact? (Or the hinge itself casued some discouloring?) Thus the colouring. Old Paper in old album = bad news.

_________________
Greg - Looking for Goulburn Australia Cancels and Grangemouth Scotland Cancels and Covers
Member of the S.T.A.M.P Club for Slightly Twisted And Mad Philatelists - Motto: "Bring back the lick!"

A new question for a quiet thread... Should I soak it?



5 Diana's in strip. It's bit scruffy, and there doesn't seem to be enough of interest on the rest of the fragment to make it worth keeping on there? It's not worth much off, but is it worth more on?

Thoughts?

Craig

My thoughts are that if you soak the strip it won't be a strip anymore.

Chances are it will fall apart when soaking, so I personally would not soak it.

But it's your choice.

A really interesting (and bifurcated thread).

Just by way of observation, the book by Brian Pope on the "Philatelic Collection of the Wester Australian Museum" states that the gum has been deliberately removed from the mint/ unused stamps to assist a greater degree of preservation.

Considering this, two questions come to mind...here's a can of worms.

If long term proactive preservation is a collector's goal, will removing the gum (which would inevitably have been regarded as a transitory addition anyway...that is, postage stamps were intended to be used and therfore the gum would be 'gone' under normal circumstances); would or should well preserved 'gumless' stamps be worth any less than ones that still retain the gum?; and

If gum is a primary attractant and substrate for fungi that will probably inevitably hitch a ride, isn't removing the gum at the early signs of toning a reasonable action to halt potential further deterioration?

Cheers - Matt

Lots of Yes and No's here in reply.

Old gum was made from organic matter as was the paper and inks used.
As gum ages (Old gum) it can shrink and break down at a different speed to the paper and in many cases has started to tear the paper it attached to apart! So has to be soaked off.

There is No proof at all that foxing etc is fungii! The jury is out. It can aslo be blamed on iron particles in the paper maunfacturing process and thus the common idea that it is rust!

And it just wont occur unless you have 2 things going on - Warmth and above 40% humidity. Keep it below that and it just doesnt happen.

Will it affect the value of a mint stamp? At the moment probably yes until everyone gets used to the idea. A bit of a use a cork or screwtop thing!

Long term - I see no choice! To save the stamp you may have to soak.

More later - I just heard the dinner bell!

_________________
Greg - Looking for Goulburn Australia Cancels and Grangemouth Scotland Cancels and Covers
Member of the S.T.A.M.P Club for Slightly Twisted And Mad Philatelists - Motto: "Bring back the lick!"

Thanks Greg - very nicely put...one would think that with long-term considerations in mind that it might open up a bit of a debate on the subject - gum on versus gum off?

Looking at some of the rarities for sale at European auctions there are certainly references to mint (no gum) material and it doesn't seem to make these any less desirable to the punters.

I also note a tongue in cheek remark (or was it) by Andrew McEachern in the January 2010 issue of Stamp News, p.49: "...And I'm still researching which ill-advised German stamp dealer started the craze for MUH."

Well...sort of sums it up in a way...if we are attributing significant extra value to a 'gummed' stamp versus an 'ungummed' equivalent, aren't we placing an awful lot of value on a smidgen of glue...?

The value in a smidgen of glue? Absolutely!

Dinners over so part 2.....

For the ultimate perfectionista will not be satisfied unless all the boxs are ticked!

However for the Museum Curator, Librarian, Conservator of Collections I would say the gum has to go.
Plus with these Official Collections it would be highly unlikely that they would later sell the items they have so carefully acquired.

If an item is rare enough - or their being destroyed inadvertanly by perfectionistas who refuse to soak - then far better to have a real one to look at, and you'll only look at the front anyway - who want's to look at blank paper! - than gaze longingly at a photo of what used to be.

For many older stamps it has to be Preservation not Perfection.

Does any care that the Sphinx has no nose? No, theres only one. Were just thankful Napoleon didn't fire more cannons! (I think it was Napoleon) Are they going to put the nose back on? No, it could never look as aged gracefully as it does now. (Is that a good analogy or have I had too many beers with dinner?)

_________________
Greg - Looking for Goulburn Australia Cancels and Grangemouth Scotland Cancels and Covers
Member of the S.T.A.M.P Club for Slightly Twisted And Mad Philatelists - Motto: "Bring back the lick!"

Excellent Greg...summed up beautifully...beers are doing fine.

It would have to be true however that as collectors I guess we are also conservators...even if only in the amature sense.

Given this, and considering many collectors collect 19th Centuary material (mint/ unused...I'm not one of those many by the way); would you think it prudent to review the state of your collection and where toning is clearly visible on gummed examples, to stay on the side of caution and as you so nicely put it, make sure there is at least a good 'front' to look at...if not for us at least for a future generation?

After all - that's where the value is, isn't it.

Mind you, with collecting trends the way they are, maybe toning might become acceptable...even desirable... ...seems like folk are still prepared to pay good money for toned material.

I just won this block in an auction and it seems to fall into the spirit of this thread.

I plan to soak the gum of the back and I bid as if it were no gum with some toning. The staple appears to have caused most of the damage.

Biased on Glen's suggestion in a different thread, I cleaned the same type of stamp by boiling water, placing it in a shallow dish, and soaking the stamp for 2 minutes. It did not remove all the toning but it did clean it up some with no noticeable damage to the stamp. To me having a nice stamp which will last for my lifetime is better than having one with some moldy gum on the back.

_________________
-=
http://www.bluelineapiary.com/

Couldn't agree more...common-sense principles...

Greg, Pod,

A really interesting conversation. Greg, you said


Now that's a revelation. I, and maybe many others had sort of been led to believe that rust/toning/foxing was a fungus. Have you got more info on this aspect?

As far as Australian pre-decimal stamps are concerned, especially colonial and KGV, gum is an enemy, along with old hinges. I collect Australia 1901-1965 used, and soak everything. I've seen a few corners come off, and a few thins and tears emerge as hinges, paper residue and other gunk floated clear, but I've never had a problem with fading inks, and no problems with the chalk-surfaced papers.

So for me, soak'n conserve.

Clive